Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Quinn expected to use amendatory veto on concealed-carry bill
Chicago Tribune ^ | 02 july 2013 | Monique Garcia

Posted on 07/02/2013 6:45:04 AM PDT by rellimpank

Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn intends to take action today on legislation that would allow guns to be carried in public, and he's widely expected to insert changes to the bill to try to put in place stricter regulations.

While Quinn would not say Monday what he plans to do with the concealed carry measure, sponsoring Rep. Brandon Phelps said the governor's office told him that Quinn would rewrite the proposal using his amendatory veto powers.

Quinn is a staunch gun-control advocate who has decried the federal appellate court decision that struck down Illinois' long-standing concealed carry ban. The ruling forced lawmakers to strike a compromise to set up rules on who can carry guns and where before a court-ordered deadline expired and left a lack of regulation on the books.

But the legislation lawmakers approved did not include a number of restrictions pushed by Quinn, including a statewide ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. It's unclear what changes Quinn plans to make, but Phelps said he believed limiting the number of rounds that

(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Illinois
KEYWORDS: banglist; rkba

1 posted on 07/02/2013 6:45:04 AM PDT by rellimpank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

I thought the bill was veto proof: didn’t it have enough votes in the House and Senate to pass it without the governor’s signature?


2 posted on 07/02/2013 6:50:13 AM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

Illinois - home of the “Bend over here it comes” Law. TPTB can do anything they want for as long as “we” let them.


3 posted on 07/02/2013 7:04:15 AM PDT by NoNAIS (Yet another Government program not needed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

Quinn needs to go to prison, where the other 4 IL govs went.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8973798


4 posted on 07/02/2013 7:05:11 AM PDT by carriage_hill (Guns kill people, pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk & spoons make you fat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

Who in their right mind... Oh, right, Chicago. Duh.

It would seem that right after overriding the governor’s veto that the next step would be to fix this ‘veto’ power. I can see how useful it would be to allow the executive to make small changes to a bill before signing - perhaps fixing an error in language, for example.

But outright giving the power of legislation to the governor who can change apparently any bill to include anything he chooses? That seems to be an absolute breaking of the concept of the separation of powers. Then again, how many times have judges legislated from the bench? Why should I be surprised about a governor legislating with a veto pen?


5 posted on 07/02/2013 7:07:57 AM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

If Illinois Republicans knew that this was even a possibility, they should have never agreed to any gun law.

Veto proof in initial legislation means nothing, if when a law is vetoed, Democrats change their votes to support the governor’s veto. Which they will.

So when this happens, the Republicans only recourse will be to sue to overturn the amended law as unconstitutional.

They could have avoided that completely by just refusing to play ball in the first place. Either the Republicans were being incredibly stupid, or they still have a card to play.

The US Seventh Circuit gave them a tremendous opportunity, and it would be ridiculous if they blew it.


6 posted on 07/02/2013 7:40:49 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

Yes, it did, but there’s a process involved:

First the bill is passed with a veto proof majority
Then, the governor vetoes it either by a complete veto or an amendatory veto

Next, someone in the legislature, in this case one of its chief sponsors, files the necessary paperwork to call for an override vote

A vote is taken. There must be a completely separate vote to override the veto, which will almost certainly have a different margin. There will be democrats who supported it just to avoid constitutional carry who will not vote to override Quinn’s veto.

If that vote is of sufficient number to override the veto, then the bill, as previously passed, becomes law whether Mr. Quinn or Mr. Emanuel like it or not.

It should be noted that the bill as amended will certainly pass muster as a bill that the federal court said was needed. They struck down an outright ban. Quinn could make it a “may issue” bill and then set the bar so high that it;s still an effective ban, or let Chicago exempt itself from it, or any number of other things that would avoid constitutional carry.

This was a hard fought compromise, that many Chicago liberals wanted no part of but saw as the lesser of two evils, the worse option being constitutional carry. Please carry no issusion that there were a lot of original votes that didn’t want any part of this. Mr, Quinn ahs been working behind the scenes to find out how many Chicago liberals would change their votes and NOT vote to override his veto if he did such and so. trhis is what has taken so long.

Quinn claims that he needed time to review the legislation, which is a load of crap. He has no problem signing things that he supports the minute they hit his desk—in those cases, he sees no need to “carefully review” the bill. He needed time to caucus with Chicago liberals to see how restrictive he could make an amended bill and NOT get overriden.

The only reason this was “carefull r3eviewed” and not vetoed the minute it hit his desk is that there was an “or else”—constitutional carry. If that was not a threat, the concealed carry law would have been vetoed before the courier left the room.

My expectations: Quinn will amend the legislation with:

1) An outright ban on assault weapons in the state
2) A limit on the number of rounds any magazine in the state can hold
3) An exception for “home rule” communities to not allow concealed carry or regulate it at their pleasure
4) A change from shall issue to may issue, with severe restrictions on when the state “may” issue to the point that it’s like NY or CA’s. It’s on the books, but no one gets one. Which is the same as the previous situation—only people like Mr. Quinn get armed protection.

That would satisfy the federal court and end the “crisis”.

I would not be surprised if Mr. Quinn also included new taxes and fees and pension reform at the same time, because Mr. Quinn seems to have a fetish for raising taxes that borders on obsession.

We’ll find out how accurate I am just after 11 AM this morning.


7 posted on 07/02/2013 7:59:16 AM PDT by VideoPaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: VideoPaul

Oh, and there’s also a strong chance that the cost of applying for the licenses will skyrocket—I don’t think $1,500 is out of the question—that are NOT refunded when they deny your license as a “may issue” state. This will be used ass a cheap way to get a few hundred grand into Springfield in a hurry.

Also, the training requirement will likely get cranked up. I don’t see 40 hours as out of his line of thinking. Again, this will all be required to be paid and completed BEFORE the “may issue” denial. His little way of jamming it to people who want the same armed protection that people like Quinn, Emanuel and Madigan get, 24 hours a day, at no cost to them.


8 posted on 07/02/2013 8:17:16 AM PDT by VideoPaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

********UPDATE*********

Illinois Capitol Fax (www.capitolfax.com) had published what it claims is a DRAFT version of the amendatory veto’s details:

1) Re-defines “concealed firearm” to mean a handgun “completely covered or not visible from the view of the public” (rather than “completely or mostly concealed”).

2) Limits a licensee to carrying one magazine capable of holding 10 rounds or less (the original bill did not include a limitation).

3) Prohibits carrying in any establishment where alcohol may be consumed, except for a private residence or private club.

4) Reverses the presumption of where licensees can carry – licensees can only carry in locations where the property owner has posted a sign indicating permission to carry concealed firearms on the property. Accordingly, removes the requirement that owners of prohibited places must post signs.

5) Provides that an employer may prohibit an employee from carrying or bringing a firearm onto the employer’s entire property, thereby allowing an employer to prohibit an employee from storing a firearm in a car parked in the employer’s parking lot. In HB 183’s “safe harbor” provision, an employee can keep his or her firearm in the car while parked in the lot, even if the employer prohibits firearms on the property.

6) Requires the licensee to lock the firearm in a case before exiting the vehicle when parked in a prohibited location and prohibits the licensee from carrying the firearm outside of the car into a prohibited parking area for any purpose. In HB 183, a licensee can carry an unloaded firearm in the immediate area surrounding the car in order to store it or retrieve it from the trunk. The AV would remove this part of the “safe harbor” provision.

7) Provides that law enforcement and school officials reporting clear & present danger need only to report directly to law enforcement, rather than to DHS.

8) Allows certain, non-confidential information to be disclosed under FOIA & the Open Meetings Act.

9) Completely removes the assault weapon ban preemption, thereby restoring home rule authority to enact an assault weapons ban without limitation.


9 posted on 07/02/2013 8:38:40 AM PDT by VideoPaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
The US Seventh Circuit gave them a tremendous opportunity, and it would be ridiculous if they blew it.

Prepare to see them blow it. [/cynic]
The Republican party is in collusion with the Democrat, to think otherwise is to ignore their actions.

10 posted on 07/02/2013 8:49:20 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

Live stream here:

http://new.livestream.com/blueroomstream/events/2224962


11 posted on 07/02/2013 9:03:14 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VideoPaul

Does the process somehow allow legislators to withdraw the bill, as amended?

If the governor can amend a bill and legislators can’t disapprove without a veto proof majority, there seems to be a separation of powers issue.

My other question: if it is watered down to may issue, how does that satisfy the court’s ruling?


12 posted on 07/02/2013 9:07:27 AM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

The court simply said that the outright, complete ban on concealed carry is unconstitutional. They ordered the state to enact legislation to allow for it. That was the end of the discussion. A watered down bill that says that the state “may” issue, and just decide not to issue to hardly anyone, passes that muster right now. It does in CA, NY, NJ and many other may issue states. They require you to provide a reason to exercise a constitutional right and “ordinary” citizens, don’t have a reason.

Quinn is yammering now. He’s doing exactly as the “leaked” draft suggested. I hope this gets overridden fast.

Better yet, let’s see Quinn, Emanuel and Madigan’s bodyguards have to follow these restrictions that Mr. Quinn has mandated.


13 posted on 07/02/2013 9:18:45 AM PDT by VideoPaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson